Options for Coordinating the Metric Conversion of Traffic Control Signs |
|---|
|
Rodney E. Slater
Federal Highway Administration
27 June 1994
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 122 (Monday, June 27, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-15517]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: June 27, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Highway Administration
[FHWA Docket No. 93-26]
Options for Coordinating the Metric Conversion of Traffic Control
Signs
AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) DOT.
ACTION: Notice of agency decision.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this notice, the FHWA summarizes the responses to an FHWA
notice titled ``Options for Coordinating the Metric Conversion of
Traffic Control Signs,'' and announces the agency's decision to delay
implementation of any national metric sign conversion until after 1996,
or until further indication of the intention of Congress on this
subject is received.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Charles W. Craig, Office of
Highway Safety, (202) 366-2187, or Mr. Wilbert Baccus, Office of the
Chief Counsel, (202) 366-0780, Federal Highway Administration, 400
Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August 31, 1993, the FHWA published a
notice in the Federal Register in which the agency requested comments
on the three options it is considering for coordinating an orderly
transition of distance, weight, and speed traffic control sign legends
from English to metric units consistent with the Federal Highway
Administration's five-year plan to convert its activities and business
operations to the metric system, as required under the Omnibus Trade
and Competitiveness Act of 1988. 58 FR 46036.
Option 1 involved making the conversion over an extended period of
time (a maximum of 4 to 7 years) through routine maintenance
replacement.
Option 2 recommended a quick conversion of all signs over a short
period (6 months to 1 year) through a concentrated effort.
Option 3 encouraged a two-phase conversion process using dual
posting of both metric and English messages for speed, weight, and
distance signs in the first phase (complete by September 30, 1996). The
second phase would involve the removal of all of the English units with
metric units remaining.
All comments were to be received by November 1, 1993. Comments
continue to be received sporadically. As of January 12, 1994, the FHWA
received 2,736 comments to this docket divided as follows:
Received from the general public............................... 2,592
Opposed...................................................... 2,228
In favor..................................................... 364
Option 1 (routine maintenance)............................. 23
Option 2 (quick change).................................... 224
Option 3 (dual units)...................................... 117
Received from various professional organizations............... 12
Opposed...................................................... 1
In favor (mostly Option 2)................................... 11
Received from Cities/Counties.................................. 82
Opposed...................................................... 51
In favor..................................................... 31
Option 1................................................... 3
Option 2................................................... 25
Option 3 & combination of options.......................... 3
Received from States (3 States sent 2 responses = 48 total).... 45
Opposed...................................................... 8
In favor in some form........................................ 37
Option 1................................................... 3
Option 2 (including various versions & combination of
options).................................................. 37
Option 3................................................... 1
Two Congressional responses were received with both opposing any
change.
Responses From the General Public
Eighty-six percent of the comments received opposed converting
English measurement signs to metric. A majority of the negative
responses stated the funds to convert the signs could be better used
for repair of roads and bridges or for charitable purposes. A number of
comments advised that the conversion to metric was unnecessary and
discussed personal objections.
The responses in favor of the metric change were split between
Options 2 and 3, with Option 2 receiving about twice the number of
favorable comments as Option 3. In general, those that strongly
supported converting to metric favored ``the quicker the better''
Option 2, and many commented that the United States was behind most of
the other nations in adopting the metric system.
Where nearly every negative response mentioned the cost involved
with converting and the need to do other things with that money, almost
none of the responses in favor of change mentioned costs. Also, quite a
few of the positive responses stated that a public education program
was needed before the change was made.
Responses From Organizations and Other Federal Agencies
These responses included the American Public Works Association, The
Department of Commerce, the Institute of Transportation Engineers, U.S.
Metric Association, and several others. There was one negative response
with the others mostly favoring Option 2 (quick change). The U.S.
Department of Commerce (the lead Federal agency in the change to
metric) recommended ``that metric conversion of highway signs be
delayed until after successful completion of FHWA's current conversion
plan.''
Responses From Cities/Counties
Nearly all responses, both positive and negative, identified the
need for special funding and a public education program if the decision
is made to change signs to metric units. Most of the negative responses
especially emphasized the cost of this proposal. Several commented that
this was another Federal mandate without thought of how it would be
locally financed. Most of the positive responses favored Option 2.
Responses From States
Forty-five States responded. Eight States expressed opposition to
the metrication of highway signs and all of the eight questioned the
need to make the change. A ninth State expressed opposition but stated
that if the sign legends must be converted to metric it would recommend
a modified Option 2. The remaining 36 States supported the switch to
metric. Most of these expressed support for Option 2 or some
combination of two or all three of the Options. One State recommended
implementation of the change using a method different from all of the
three Options. Most of the State responses, both positive and negative,
requested special funding and an education/public information program
before implementation. Several States included an estimate of the cost
to convert signs on the State highway systems and also estimated that
the conversion costs of the signs on the non-State highway system,
because of the much larger mileage, would cost a great deal more than
the State system conversion.
Agency Decision
Subsequent to the August 31, 1993, notice, Congress passed the
Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of
1994. Public Law 103-122, 107 Stat. 1198. Section 331 of this Act
prohibits the use of Department of Transportation Fiscal Year 1994
funds for implementing metric signing. Currently, there are several
proposed bills in both the Senate and House of Representatives placing
future restriction on the changing of highway signs from the English
system to the metric system.
In consideration of the docket responses, the current statutory
prohibition, and a possible future Congressional restriction on using
Federal funds for metric signs, the FHWA will not require the
implementation of metric sign legends until at least after 1996. Before
any nationally directed conversion to metric highway signs is
implemented, the agency will conduct a strong public education program
and will consider other appropriate measures to assure that such a
conversion would be as smooth as possible.
Authority: 23 U.S.C. 315; 49 CFR 1.48.
Issued on: June 21, 1994.
Rodney E. Slater,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 94-15517 Filed 6-24-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P